Do you really need a bench coach at any level other then ML though? I feel like a pile of sticks with a smiley face painted on them could run most of the minor league teams.

Franchise Profile: Kokopelli found a team (with an owner who knows what they're doing) who budgeted 20 and spent it all ... spent a lotttt on FI (5.6M) and got fancy by purchasing the best ML 3B to be his 1B, and spent extra on BU. Didn't spend unreasonably extra across his minors

I like coach hiring :)

Posted by pjfoster13 on 2/3/2017 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/3/2017 1:15:00 PM (view original):
No, just do what I ask. Which is back up your ridiculous, and wrong, statement.

Show me which one of my 6m coaching budget teams has "the worst coach at every level".

Should I wait here while you check or would you prefer to admit you're spewing bullshit?

Franchise Profile: Grass Skirts you spent 9, not 6. Despite the wasted 3M, your FI is 5th from the bottom, ML PC 5th from the bottom, HC 9th from the bottom, a double-A caliber BC you're paying $1.2M, the worst AAA bench coach and below average aaa pc and hc, average aa coaches, bad hi a coaches, good low a pc terrible hc and bc, good rookie hc

Franchise Profile: Charge budget 6, average FI, good HC, good 3b, slightly below average ML pc, AA caliber ML bc, terrible aaa coaches, terrible aa coaches, ok hia hc terrible bc and pc, below average lowa, terrible rookie

I'm not even going to go any further than this. You literally have the worst coaches at *almost every single level and you insist that you don't. At least make an intangible argument that you feel like it doesn't matter. But objectively, these coaches have terrible ratings. Each level has a "par" value, or at least a league average value. Your coaches are absolutely terrible relative to other teams coaches at the same level, that is objectively fact in every sense. you don't understand your own stupidity sometimes

If I have a good FI who's willing to resign for 750k, I budget 6m and do just fine.
If I have to sign a FI, I budget 9m and, again, do just fine.


So, if you would, which has "the worst coach at ever level"? I don't believe you pointed it out yet.

Posted by pjfoster13 on 2/3/2017 1:44:00 PM (view original):
Franchise Profile: Kokopelli found a team (with an owner who knows what they're doing) who budgeted 20 and spent it all ... spent a lotttt on FI (5.6M) and got fancy by purchasing the best ML 3B to be his 1B, and spent extra on BU. Didn't spend unreasonably extra across his minors

$20 mill for coaches is unreasonable because it's not sustainable. The point I see with spending 6 mill, or in my case 9 is that when you have a competitive team, and extra 2 million can go miles for singing that extra free agent or making a trade.

Likewise, when rebuilding, an extra 2 million in prospect payroll can mean I can take a 'might sign' late in rounds or outbid for an IFA. Until someone proves with undisputable evidence that coaching will make the difference in 5 to 10 points in player development (1-2 overall I don't really care) I'll stick with my bargain bin coaches........ except FI.

IMO, that's the right call. I don't worry too much about AAA coaches because, by the time they get there, they're BL ready or they won't be anything but emergency call-ups. I treat LoA/HiA/RL like one level so I really only need one good HC/PC between the three. AA is the one but, if I miss out, I'll do better in AAA or leave my guy in HiA.

If you're spending double at each level, 12m for instance, you're ******* away 3-6m that could be used elsewhere.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/3/2017 1:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pjfoster13 on 2/3/2017 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/3/2017 1:15:00 PM (view original):
No, just do what I ask. Which is back up your ridiculous, and wrong, statement.

Show me which one of my 6m coaching budget teams has "the worst coach at every level".

Should I wait here while you check or would you prefer to admit you're spewing bullshit?

Franchise Profile: Grass Skirts you spent 9, not 6. Despite the wasted 3M, your FI is 5th from the bottom, ML PC 5th from the bottom, HC 9th from the bottom, a double-A caliber BC you're paying $1.2M, the worst AAA bench coach and below average aaa pc and hc, average aa coaches, bad hi a coaches, good low a pc terrible hc and bc, good rookie hc

Franchise Profile: Charge budget 6, average FI, good HC, good 3b, slightly below average ML pc, AA caliber ML bc, terrible aaa coaches, terrible aa coaches, ok hia hc terrible bc and pc, below average lowa, terrible rookie

I'm not even going to go any further than this. You literally have the worst coaches at *almost every single level and you insist that you don't. At least make an intangible argument that you feel like it doesn't matter. But objectively, these coaches have terrible ratings. Each level has a "par" value, or at least a league average value. Your coaches are absolutely terrible relative to other teams coaches at the same level, that is objectively fact in every sense. you don't understand your own stupidity sometimes

If I have a good FI who's willing to resign for 750k, I budget 6m and do just fine.
If I have to sign a FI, I budget 9m and, again, do just fine.


So, if you would, which has "the worst coach at ever level"? I don't believe you pointed it out yet.

Ok so apparently it matters which league you are signed into when you click on a team's profile. I was in my Toronto league (currently S36) so when I clicked your charleston team it gave me your S36 values. So I'll do this again with your most up-to-date values

Grass Skirts S43: 9M, below average ML hc, below average ML pc, very bad BU 1B and 3B, aaa/aa caliber at ML bench, bad fielding. aa caliber at aaa hc and pc, hia caliber at aaa bc, aa are reasonable, rookie caliber at hia bench pc and hc, less than rookie caliber at lowa hitting and bench, ok lowa pc, good rookie hc and ok rookie pc and bench

Those are not "doing fine" values, 80% those are horrendous except for three at AA and one rookie coach.

"Worst coach at every level"?

"If you're spending double at each level, 12m for instance, you're ******* away 3-6m that could be used elsewhere."

"Spending double" in the minors does not get you to 12, it probably only gets you to 10. As we've already seen, the difference between 9m and 12m is literally only the ML bench, PC, HC, and FI by themselves. The minimum is 600k for bench and $1.2M for HC when you're promoting. So you're not "******* away" 3M, you're simply spending it on those 3-4 spots. It is cost-effective to punt ML BC with a promotion but it is less valuable to punt HC and PC with a promotion. Instead of spending 1.2M on 80 IQ PC-HC, spend the extra 1.0M each on a 90 IQ. Those two spots ML HC and PC specifically seem pretty important, ML bench is less clear

But typically guys who have reached the Majors will have all but maxed out their ratings increases. I've seen a few points go up here or there, or on the very very rare instance where I get a superstar I'll promote him at 19 or 20, but like mike said, wouldn't it be wiser to have a 80-85 PC or HC in AA or AAA to let those guys build up the ratings there?

Still wasting resources. I'm sure you agree in your 130-170 minor league players that maybe a dozen will be significant contributors at the BL level. And that's if you're spending money on HS, College or IFA. You aren't getting an 83 HC in HiA. So you pitter-patter over 68 or 62. Maybe you put an extra 100k to get the best HiA HC. And you do this several times over. Or you could just put that 2nd year player in AA with your 74 HC.

I'm not even going to get into BL coach salary waste. If you have a team full of BL players still developing or quickly declining that MAKES you have the best coaches, you've done something wrong.

6-9m is fine if you don't mind having a 82 HC instead of that 91.

["In an average year you'll end up spending exactly 12. If your fielding coach decides to stay put you could get away with 11, and if you also have a good AAA bench coach that you can promote to majors, you could possibly get by with 10."]

Note that this is the first thing I said. Those statements are perfectly reasonable, because data. If you analyze your leagues you will see that overall spending is definitely a bell curve and that 10-12 are definitely the middle values on your graph. Not sure why this prompts your "you're wrong!" "you're spewing bullshit!" response

As you've attempted to counter, "I can budget 9 and do just fine", except that when you do 9 you are purposely punting ML HC and PC with lesser guys, which is probably not best because a) they're the 2nd-most important coaches besides FI, and b) you don't save very much money by punting those two specifically, and also you have terrible minors which may or may not matter. It probably matters.

Because there are often decent (sometimes above-average) ML leftovers at the end, as hockey and others allude to, then yes that can be a way for the "pros" to shave 1-2 mil

Tell me why BL HC/PC are the 2nd most important coaches.

I'd argue 1st and 3rd base coaches are 2nd most important and no one gives them the time of day. Specially when I'm in a black hole like Petco Park.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/3/2017 3:09:00 PM (view original):
Still wasting resources. I'm sure you agree in your 130-170 minor league players that maybe a dozen will be significant contributors at the BL level. And that's if you're spending money on HS, College or IFA. You aren't getting an 83 HC in HiA. So you pitter-patter over 68 or 62. Maybe you put an extra 100k to get the best HiA HC. And you do this several times over. Or you could just put that 2nd year player in AA with your 74 HC.

I'm not even going to get into BL coach salary waste. If you have a team full of BL players still developing or quickly declining that MAKES you have the best coaches, you've done something wrong.

6-9m is fine if you don't mind having a 82 HC instead of that 91.

I typically budget $10-12M (sometimes $14M) for coaches. But this actually makes sense. If your ML players are at the age in which they are no longer developing, what's the point of paying for good coaches at that level?